Are you against or pro euthanasia?

@GeistInTheMachine People say that but the slippery Slope is not a true logical fallacy it just can be. To treat slippery slopes as a decacto fallacy though is ignorant and myth in and of itself. Slippery slopes do exist and they have proven to be problematic.

@MethDozer Give an example.

@GeistInTheMachine I can't off the top of my head. However the slippery slope argument only says it leads down a path of possibilities, it is rarely stated as being an absolute. The fact is that one decision does on fact bring one closer to certain outcomes. It is only a true logical fallacy when it is stated as being an absolute outcome. Also it is never a fallacy when there are mathematical determinations involved. Ergo, a slippery slope argument is not by default an logical fallacy is worded and presented correctly. If presented as bringing one closer to a possibility it is a true statement and a warrants caution. If it is presented as a concrete ending then it becomes a fallacy.

@MethDozer it's been legal in Switzerland since 1942, no slippery slope so far.

@MethDozer You may be technically correct on it not being a fallacy, but I find that the Slippery Slope is too often employed to stifle reasonable debate and potentially beneficial change to society.

@GeistInTheMachine Fair enough, I find that these days it is too often ignored and brushed off resulting in negative change to society. Obama care for example. To each their own .

@MethDozer There are endless possibilities in life, and endless consequences, but that doesn't mean we should be paralyzed to act.

Otherwise, no one would ever get anything done, and society would never learn and progress.

@MethDozer I don't agree with your premise that Obama Care was negative overall - that's debatable.

But even negative outcomes can have positive results in the long run, if we learn from our mistakes.

@SW-User I don't see a slippery slope on this issue really, was just saying that they are worth discussing in general..

How it is employed would be and arguments I. That regard. Personally I think anyone that doesn't want to live for any reason should have access If there is any unintended consequences that could arise from it it would most likely being us losing our best, brightest, and most prosperous cultures and societies since it most often seems self preservation is higher in groups that struggle the most.Oh well though, who cares? Being gifted doesn't mean one owes anyone else so let them go.

@GeistInTheMachine Rather not get to much I to Obama care and hijack the thread but it really just helped the bottom rung that payed nothing at the expense of the middle class so I call it a loss and a negative. The healthcare situation has gotten worse because if it got most, not better.

"But even negative outcomes can have positive results in the long run, if we learn from our mistakes."


Learning from mistakes is of benefit but it doesn't mean it is advisable or wise to go Willy nilly and make them as a general policy. Negative outcomes are always best avoided in the first place.

@MethDozer it's been discussed by better minds than ours over decades. What stops it's acceptance is religion!

Correction discussed for millennia, the ancient Greeks indeed had the option in their societies.

@SW-User religion has a huge effect on it but more to it than that as well. It is just not a cultural norm in Western society as general rule. There are lots of no religious ethical and moral debates that are reasonable, yet I side in the side of personal choices. It doesn't matter who discusses it because this is an argument of society norms and principles, not facts. Principles and societal norms are not about neighbor fact a bit about what a society chooses to stand for. There is no science to principles and society morals.

@MethDozer No one's saying to go "willy-nilly." Even something like Obama Care was deliberated over and discussed back and forth between the two parties, and weighed against different left wing and right wing options.

Obamacare was originally a conservative idea, from the Heritage Foundation, I believe.

Nixon liked the idea, and Mitt Romney implemented a similar system on a smaller scale in his own state.

But I guess I'll leave it at that, so as to not hijack things into a political discussion.

I'll let you have the last word, I've said pretty much what I wanted to say on the topic.

@GeistInTheMachine It was, and that was the problem with it. Yet the Dems and Obama were so hell bent on having anything, they were willing to accept something worse and that is were the slippery slope came I to effect. They dwell down the slope of pushing so hard for something that when the resistance to it was greater, they would take a piecemeal that was worse and created more problems. Instead of dropping it and trying later.


That is a I mean.

@MethDozer I don't believe there is anything more to it than religion and remnants of religion. Modern Western society is entrenched with christianty, its all around us. Christisnity is our social norm even if you are atheist and it strangles us, defeats science in researh and developement, governs our commerce and working lives, our education and politics. Euthanasia as to have a rational scientific approach, end of. The less abramic religions have to do with anything the better imo.

@SW-User I agree.

@SW-User It is taboo in most religions and cultures. Not just Abrahmic. It goes right down to our survival of the species instinct. There is no science based decision in it as it is a principle and not a tangible thing. It is an emotional debate over morality. There is no science to that. What does a culture decide is more moral and which wins out in the direction one wants it to go in. Towards personal choice or societal commitment?

@MethDozer evolutionary science is not a science? Rationality is science, rationality are morals, basic morals are instinctive, instinct comes from genetic coding. Psychiatry deals with emotions! Unsure you fully understand or maybe I'm not being clear. Survival of the species depends on success, success depends solely on ability to reproduce. End of.

@SW-User Right, and success if the species is partly a survival instinct that makes suicide of any form a taboo. It requires more than ability to reproduce. Fact.
Morals are not about rationality and are not a science in any way. They are principles. There is no science or proofs to principles. Or maybe you want expand the definition of science into some namby pambyism. No, morality is subjective and actually not having a natural adversion to suicide in any form of one's own is evolutionary sound. Morality is about moving beyond such base reactions. Many of our most problematic and wicked qualities are there because of evolutionary biology.

You say it is about our success to reproduce. Well aversion to death in all form increases the chances of species success. So again, it is evolutionary sound and supported by it.